Posted on 07/22/2004 7:50:08 AM PDT by ruddigore
They will spend their life with babysitters, grandparents, friends, boyfriends, strangers. And maybe, just maybe, someone that can give them love and guidance out of the cycle of selfishness and dispair.
Probably Peter Singer.
My reading of the piece is that she lambastes women who abort their children for congenital deficiencies, for not owning up publicly to their actions.
I think abortion is killing. However, if we do make it illegal, how do we enforce this? Fines/imprisonment/forced sterilization?
I just read through all of the comments and noticed that, apart from your initial statement, you have had nothing else to contribute to the thread. I am interested: what do you think of this woman's decisions and assertions? C'mon, speak up now.
What's bold is the increasingly brazen stance of the pro-abortion types. For a long time, the argument was supposedly over when life begins. But in the last year or two, many of them have abandoned that ground and essentially admit, "Yeah, OK, so we ARE killing babies. Big deal. Sometimes killing babies is the right thing to do."
This writer freely acknowledges murdering her unborn children in favor of the "extra-uterine" ones. And she wants not mere legal tolerance but active public approval for her infanticide. Evil, yes, but bold.
I'm sure she'll be completely understanding then, when her children, locked in their own struggle to escape the grubby life of the lower middle class, opt to put mommy to sleep in lieu of wasting their money on that expensive assisted living facility.
To: ehrenreich@nytimes.com
---
Honesty begins at home, so I should acknowledge that I had two abortions during my all-too-fertile years. You can call me a bad woman, but not a bad mother. I was a dollar-a-word freelancer and my husband a warehouse worker, so it was all we could do to support the existing children at a grubby lower-middle-class level.
---
Ms. Ehrenreich,
Did it not occur to you that there are tens of thousands of families in the US waiting to adopt infants? That a healthy child born to a healthy mother with a known medical history often has a list of prospective adoptive parents, all vying for the good graces of the mother, which reaches a dozen or more? That right now, over 1.5 million children in the US **live** with adoptive parents? [http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf]
My wife and I have struggled with infertility for over a decade, and are right now going through the steps necessary to adopt a boy and perhaps also a girl. I find it deeply tragic that you chose to kill your unborn children - that you forfeited the opportunity, 18 years hence, to meet them and befriend them and discover what they've done with your gift of erudition and intelligence - a precious opportunity which my wife and I will never have with our own flesh and blood.
Was it perhaps the shame you felt at the prospect of having to accept charity from willing adoptive parents or faith-based organizations which cost them their lives? Or perhaps the astonishing bureaucratic and legal red tape and pitfalls that plague the US domestic adoption and foster care system?
I hear some abortion advocates say that abortion should be rare, but I rarely see self-identified abortion advocates calling for the reform and streamlining of adoption in the US. Instead I read in the New York Times Sunday Magazine about a woman killing two of her children because she didn't want to have to buy big jars of mayonnaise from CostCo.
-Michael Pelletier.
She seems to hope that women who are post-abortive will "out" themselves, thus making abortion more acceptable, a la homosexuality.
I very much doubt she wants post-abortive women like me to speak out--women who discuss the guilt and anguish which follow abortion. I don't think she wants to hear from me.
She can't shut me up, though.
I'm inclined to agree. My post was actually a bit of a taunt.
"Paging ruddigore, paging ruddigore. Your opinions are required on aisle five!"
"But what makes it more morally congenial to kill a partcular "defective" fetus than to kill whatever fetus happens to come along on an equal opportunity basis?"
That's a chilling statement. I can't believe it was written in this country in the year 2004.
This woman is probably utterly untroubled by the fact that a man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".
I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. He doesn't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.
I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.
Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.
I pray for that day. Like we read about Nazi Germany now.
Like all liberals she is terrified that if post-abortive women speak out about their guilt, they may actually save a baby's life. Oh, the horror...
She is the voice of today's Democratic Party. If the polls are to be believed, about half (maybe even more) of Americans now agree with her "ho-hum" view about killing babies, as well as the various other formerly taboo behaviors her Party condones or supports. Why else would 48% or more plan to vote for Kerry/Edwards?
Over three adoption seekers per child - perhaps because so many healthy children are being slaughtered in the womb?
Heheheheheh, I haven't seen that show in years. John Cleese is a genius.
I just remember the one scene where Manuel is learning English from a tape, and keeps repeating, "My name is Manuel, I speak English very good..."
Any woman who kills her children is a bad mother. Just because you let one or two survive doesn't make you a "lioness", it makes you a hyena-ess with a guilty conscience, more commonly known as a Democrat.
Extra-uterine child. What a cold, cold new phrase from the party of compassion.
I think it is Peter Singer. Is he at the University of Colorado?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.